TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
T2 - An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
AU - Tan, Jian Liang
AU - Lee, Justin Z.
AU - Terrigno, Vittorio
AU - Saracco, Benjamin
AU - Saxena, Shivam
AU - Krathen, Jonathan
AU - Hunter, Krystal
AU - Cha, Yong Mei
AU - Russo, Andrea M.
N1 - Funding Information:
We sincerely thank Dr Yee Liong Lee for assistance with the illustration. The authors report no funding sources. Andrea M. Russo discloses research trials, funding to hospital (Boston Scientific, Kestra, Medilynx), research steering committee (Boston Scientific, Medtronic), and consultant (Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic). All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Background: Real-world data on the use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as an alternative novel pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains scarce. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of LBBAP as an alternative to BVP as a method of CRT. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies on the use of LBBAP as CRT and studies that compared LBBAP with BVP. The main outcomes examined were changes in New York Heart Association classification, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, and paced QRS duration post CRT device implantation. Results: Our meta-analysis included 8 nonrandomized studies with a total of 527 patients who underwent LBBAP as CRT. In studies with a BVP comparison group, patients with LBBAP had a greater reduction in paced QRS (mean difference [MD], 27.91 msec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22.33-33.50), and a greater improvement in New York Heart Association class (MD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90) and left ventricular ejection fraction (MD, 6.77%; 95% CI, 3.84-9.71). Patients with underlying left bundle branch block appeared to benefit the most from LBBAP compared with patients without underlying left bundle branch block. Conclusions: LBBAP might be a reasonable option for patients who meet indications for CRT, particularly in those who have limited anatomy or do not benefit from CRT. Randomized trials are needed to compare LBBAP with BVP for CRT and to identify which populations might benefit the most from LBBAP.
AB - Background: Real-world data on the use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as an alternative novel pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains scarce. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of LBBAP as an alternative to BVP as a method of CRT. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies on the use of LBBAP as CRT and studies that compared LBBAP with BVP. The main outcomes examined were changes in New York Heart Association classification, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, and paced QRS duration post CRT device implantation. Results: Our meta-analysis included 8 nonrandomized studies with a total of 527 patients who underwent LBBAP as CRT. In studies with a BVP comparison group, patients with LBBAP had a greater reduction in paced QRS (mean difference [MD], 27.91 msec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22.33-33.50), and a greater improvement in New York Heart Association class (MD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90) and left ventricular ejection fraction (MD, 6.77%; 95% CI, 3.84-9.71). Patients with underlying left bundle branch block appeared to benefit the most from LBBAP compared with patients without underlying left bundle branch block. Conclusions: LBBAP might be a reasonable option for patients who meet indications for CRT, particularly in those who have limited anatomy or do not benefit from CRT. Randomized trials are needed to compare LBBAP with BVP for CRT and to identify which populations might benefit the most from LBBAP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119907777&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85119907777&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cjco.2021.05.019
DO - 10.1016/j.cjco.2021.05.019
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85119907777
SN - 2589-790X
VL - 3
SP - 1282
EP - 1293
JO - CJC Open
JF - CJC Open
IS - 10
ER -